F-22 / F-35 5th Generation jets | News & Discussions.

[Informant]

Look at this...

For the example above, the old US Navy would sail with 5 or 6 different platforms, one for specific mission. That eventually became unaffordable in terms of logistics and manpower. The Viking's wings folds to make room for storage. The mechanisms for the wings are starboard/port specific, meaning they are not interchangeable. That is a logistical burden. Technicians who works on the Vikings may not be certified to work on the F-14 or F-18. That is an HR burden. Now do that for 5 different aircrafts, not counting helos.

If it is not the F-35, it would be another aircraft designed to replace the multitudes of platforms that US air power have. Personally, I feel that the VTOL necessity for the Marines warranted a distinct platform away from the F-35 base. But no matter what, a common platform is inevitable.

Common platform will reduce costs substantially. Less logistics nightmare.

 

[Genesis]

I thought this was interesting, stealth vs ability. At 4:00 minute mark if you don't want to watch all of it.

What's your opinion @gambit

 

[gambit]

I thought this was interesting, stealth vs ability. At 4:00 minute mark if you don't want to watch all of it.

What's your opinion @gambit

Old news.

The F-18 is the 2-engine version of the F-16: multi-role jack-of-all-trades.

Boeing's declaration that the -18 is just as 'stealthy' as the -35 is debatable, as in highly debatable, and Boeing made that declaration out of being sheer provocative rather than supportable fact.

As for Canada...Canada have next to nothing to worry about when it comes to defense. Americans are paranoid about the Western hemisphere and we will defend Canada because we believe that any attack on Canada will inevitably lead to an attack on US, so might as well watch over North and South America anyway. The Canadians knows this. At Maple Flag '88, over a few beers with some RCAF people, I made it clear to them that if war comes to the Western Hemisphere, the US will take the lead no matter where: North or South. Everyone else will be supporting US. So Canada can afford to 'downgrade' to the F-18.

 

[Falcon29]

I take pride in disrupting the JSF program.

 

[Genesis]

Old news.

The F-18 is the 2-engine version of the F-16: multi-role jack-of-all-trades.

Boeing's declaration that the -18 is just as 'stealthy' as the -35 is debatable, as in highly debatable, and Boeing made that declaration out of being sheer provocative rather than supportable fact.

As for Canada...Canada have next to nothing to worry about when it comes to defense. Americans are paranoid about the Western hemisphere and we will defend Canada because we believe that any attack on Canada will inevitably lead to an attack on US, so might as well watch over North and South America anyway. The Canadians knows this. At Maple Flag '88, over a few beers with some RCAF people, I made it clear to them that if war comes to the Western Hemisphere, the US will take the lead no matter where: North or South. Everyone else will be supporting US. So Canada can afford to 'downgrade' to the F-18.

Well I don't think it's more stealthy.

I think the debate is Broncos or Seahawks.

All out offense or all out defense.

I'm thinking if what he said is true then the carry of a F-35 is not as good and the maneuverability is not as good. So it's offensive capabilities is limited relatively.

While F-18 go for all out firepower and maneuverability with stealth characteristics for survivability.


Would the outcome be as lopsided as the super bowl or will it be a good match up?

 

[gambit]

Well I don't think it's more stealthy.

I think the debate is Broncos or Seahawks.

All out offense or all out defense.

I'm thinking if what he said is true then the carry of a F-35 is not as good and the maneuverability is not as good. So it's offensive capabilities is limited relatively.

While F-18 go for all out firepower and maneuverability with stealth characteristics for survivability.


Would the outcome be as lopsided as the super bowl or will it be a good match up?

Sure...The F-15 is not as maneuverable as the F-16. That is a known fact. But do you really think any F-16 pilot is going to enter an engagement against an F-15 pilot certain of victory ?

Am saying this nicely...But yours is the ignorant argument typical of those who can only see the hardware and discard the software -- the human factor. The F-4 is far less maneuverable than the MIG-21, but look what happened to the MIG-21 in Operation Bolo. Military aviation history is repleted with those who defied 'analyses' such as yours.

 

[SQ8]

Sure...The F-15 is not as maneuverable as the F-16. That is a known fact. But do you really think any F-16 pilot is going to enter an engagement against an F-15 pilot certain of victory ?

Am saying this nicely...But yours is the ignorant argument typical of those who can only see the hardware and discard the software -- the human factor. The F-4 is far less maneuverable than the MIG-21, but look what happened to the MIG-21 in Operation Bolo. Military aviation history is repleted with those who defied 'analyses' such as yours.

F/A-18 cannot really be qualified as a twin engine F-16.. jack of all trades. The F/A-18 when it first entered service was much more a jack of all trades as compared to the F-16 of the time. It also had a better man-machine interface which was appreciated by pilots who flew both. However, the F-16 was the aircraft built around the E-M theory.. and that is how the US fights today.. by comparison.. the F/A-18 is very good at low speed handling and high Alpha. ..but this little comment by a old F-16 rider should put it to rest.

The comment about success of the Viper and Hornet versus the Eagle and Tomcat is what I personally saw back in the early 80's. Sure, the Eagle had better nose-pointing at high AoA as did the Hornet, but we had the sustained "e" that surprised them. We could also go vertical with the Eagle and Hornet, but Eagle was better in that. Tomcat couldn't come close in that regard, but the Eagle was formidable. I once went on a vertical scissors from about 10,000 feet to maybe 25,000 or so. The Eagle ran out of smash about the same time as I did, but couldn't get the nose on me for a snap shot or Lima shot. So we came back down canopy to canopy until reaching the "floor". The de-brief was great.

Remember, the Eagle ( early ones) were limited to 7.33 gees. Corner velocity was about what we Vipers had, but we had another 2 gees!!! Just work the math to see turn radius and turn rate using 360 knots from zero to 5,000 feet. For those altitudes, we could maintain 9 gees until we ran outta gas.

Down below 200 knots or so, the Eagle had better nose pointing due to no AoA limiter, although we had full roll authority without fear of departing. I also have to point out that we had knife fights down to 150 knots or so, which ain't good more than once, but it wasn't actual combat. In Red Flag we never got anywhere near that speed and did really well getting in and getting out.

 

[flamer84]

Italy may drop F-35 purchase in favour of more Eurofighters Typhoon.

ROME — Italy’s planned purchase of 90 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) was thrown further into doubt on March 19 as members of the Italian parliament signed off a report calling for “significant” cuts to the program and senior government officials ordered a new defense white paper to reassess Italy’s military strategy by year end.

The developments came three days after new Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi suggested Italy would cut its purchase of JSFs as the Italian government struggles to bring down state spending.

While Italy has planned spending billions on the Joint Strike Fighter, it has scaled back its purchases of the Eurofighter. The report argues that instead Italy should be aiming to buy the ground attack version of the Eurofighter, which it claims would compete on level terms with the JSF, adding that the European program guarantees an industrial return equal to outlay.

Italian Lawmakers Back Cuts to JSF Purchase | Defense News | defensenews.com

Hope they go through with this decision,the Typhoon program must survive and further evolve.

 

[UKBengali]

Italy may drop F-35 purchase in favour of more Eurofighters Typhoon.




Italian Lawmakers Back Cuts to JSF Purchase | Defense News | defensenews.com

Hope they go through with this decision,the Typhoon program must survive and further evolve.

I have always thought that the JSF is a waste of money.

It has compromised stealth, lacks manoeuvrability and has a low top speed.

Sure it has great radar and electronics but who would want to be in a plane like this against a faster, more manoeuvrable T-50.

UK is only buying JSF as it has such a stake in the US defence industry. The RAF really wanted the F-22.

 

[Janmejay]

I have always thought that the JSF is a waste of money.

It has compromised stealth, lacks manoeuvrability and has a low top speed.

Sure it has great radar and electronics but who would want to be in a plane like this against a faster, more manoeuvrable T-50.

UK is only buying JSF as it has such a stake in the US defence industry. The RAF really wanted the F-22.

I wonder what @gambit has to say about this??

 

[gambit]

I wonder what @gambit has to say about this??

I say it was all crap.

As a former radar specialist, in and after the USAF, what the hell is 'compromised stealth' to start ? That phrase 'compromised stealth' was made up by someone, from who knows how long ago, who was essentially clueless on the basics of radar detection and low observability shaping. Low radar reflectivity, aka 'stealth', is not a definitive line in terms of measurement, even though we all knew, also from a long time ago, that a clean F-16 is the bar for tactical advantages in terms of difficulties in radar engagement. There is no committee, international or else, that sits down and continually reviews and update a set of specs for 'stealth'.

The F-35 have 'low top speed' ? Compare to what standards ? An F-16 in a clean config at altitude is barely Mach 2. An F-35 will usually be clean to maintain its low radar reflectivity and it is capable of Mach 1.6+. So what is this 'low top speed' criticism nonsense ? The old F-104 have a higher top speed. I hope the Bangladesh military thinks like our Bangladeshi member. Am sure he has a great deal of personal experience military aviation to post his criticisms.

Post 204 is nothing more than a feeble attempt to poke US in the eye by any avenue. It is based on willful delusions of many things technical and military despite the abundance of rebuttals by former military members here. Ignorance is excusable. Deliberate stupidity is not.

 

[gambit]

F/A-18 cannot really be qualified as a twin engine F-16.. jack of all trades.

Absolutely it can. Look at how the USN is using it. If the 'fighter mafia' led by Boyd had its way, the F-16 would not have a radar, or a radar barely capable of seeing beyond 20 km, and its role would be limited to visual range dogfights.

 

[Esc8781]

@gambit Russian radars have higher peak power than their American counterparts, but the US has better signal processing. can you explain how is that an advantage or disadvantage?

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Back to the age old comparison of the F16 vs F15. You can argue all you want.

The bottom line was the F16 was for wide export and the F15 had limited export.

The replacements are F35 vs F22. The F35 is for wide export the F22 is not.

The Harrier is not made any more. The F16 will soon be closing its line. The regular hornets need replacing. The F35 is the replacement for those 3 aircraft...and nothing more than that.

No use comparing a F35 to some other plane that is not an F16, harrier, or hornet.

 

[gambit]

@gambit Russian radars have higher peak power than their American counterparts, but the US has better signal processing. can you explain how is that an advantage or disadvantage?

Power at any level produces two things:

- Range
- Reflectivity

The higher the transmission power, the greater the range and the greater the energy level of the reflected signals. A third item, a benefit if you want, in higher and higher power is 'burn through' of interference, whether that interference is natural or man-made. Natural interference could be a weather front, for example. Man-made interference could be coincidental, like looking across a city with all the EM activities associated with normal city activities, or the interference could be deliberative and focused, like 'jamming' signals. The MIG-25's radar was so powerful that it could burn through jamming, let alone the low level and constant EM 'buzz' produced by any city. But the reflected signals were so crappy that all they could do for the MIG pilot was point out where the targets are, not the common vital target resolutions like:

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

Tactically speaking, power indicate one's position relative to the positions of whoever is/are out there and the higher the transmission power, the sooner and more visible one's position will be to those people. This is where the US wisely departed from conventional wisdom, particularly when it comes to airborne platforms. Superior avionics in terms of lower and lower transmission power with high computational power will tactically beat higher transmission power every time and against a low radar reflective opponent, the sooner one will die.